I don't know much about foundries but I remember TSMC had some problems getting to this node as does everybody. What I do know is that fabs are all TSMC does. Intel is a bigger beast that does fabbing, software, motorboards, chip design, etc.

It is this, but I don't think its in the way you think.

Intels problem is that it cannot sell FAB time because they are vertically integrated. Intel builds a FAB and runs its next gen chips off of it for a few years, then they are stuck looking for something to do with the FAB when it is no longer current-gen. The problem is this specifically. Intel is competing with just about every FAB on the planet in this older-gen market (unlike with their desktop chips) so therefore margins are thin even on much older FAB's that are good enough to satisfy the bulk of the markets needs for all these secondary sub-products (drive controllers, etc...)

There are 3 kinds of semiconductor fabricators:

1) Vertically integrated like Intel. Only they can use their FABs.
2) Integrated device manufacturer like Samsung. They can sell FAB time to other companies so long as there isnt a conflict of interest.
3) Fair-play like TSMC. They only sell FAB time.

TSMC's revenue is now approaching Intel's, and unlike Intel they can keep all their FABs busy making money, so the outlook for Intel is grim without a serious restructuring, which they are doing (see recent massive layoffs, and bullshit marketing about their new "cloud strategy")

I've posted more than once about this on slashdot, and each time I end with the same recommendation: Sell your Intel stock.

He means AMD failed to anticipate Intels anti-trust abuses, built a bunch of FABs that would be grossly under-utilized because of those abuses, and was then forced to spin them off into an independent company based on the Pure-play model so that other companies could buy time on the FABs without any conflicts of interest.

Intel would have been the next Motorola had it not been for those anti-trust abuses.

Look at any standard library or application framework and you will not find any cache oblivious algorithms.

Linked lists are just traditionally implemented linked lists. Hash tables are just traditionally implemented hash tables. Trees are just traditionally implemented trees. Even sorting will be a ham-fisted quicksort.

pretty much only assembly language programmers give a shit, mainly because they are the only ones that understand the issues. Any exceptions you find are the exceptions that prove the rule.

I can't think of a good reason not to have free public transportation besides the classic line "But who's gonna pay for it?"...

How about "Will this solve the problem I am trying to solve?"

The answer is probably no, that it will not solve your smog problem. It would have a minimal impact on particulate emissions that are due to transportation. Getting even 5% of the people to use public transport that do not use it already would be a huge success, and that at most reduces emissions by.... 5%.

Public transport is already cheaper than driving. Cost isnt enough incentive. You would have to pay people to ride to provide enough incentive.

There arguably is a cost. Perhaps one can shrug it off as in "meh, the bus is scheduled anyway. The only point in time where it might be problematic is during rush hours when you need to field a few more busses." Or perhaps not.

The set of people that would be paying for the service but now dont have to is the cost. This cost is pushed on to the tax payers, and the bulk of state and local tax dollars are surely paid by the middle class and the poor since Illinois has a single-rate income tax (a flat tax.)

This progressive policy has a regressive consequence. Free rides should be given to the poorest people, not the oldest people.

Give or take... but they are probably still 15 years away from actual 14nm feature sizes. If current features were simply reduced by a factor of 15 across the board, the smallest feature size would still be about 3nm.

None of the features will be as small as 10nm in size, just like none of Intels 14nm chips have features even close to as small as 14nm.

The current trend in labeling since transistors started on their vertical adventures is to extrapolate an "equivalent" feature size based on overall transistor density. These TSMC-made chips have about a 30% higher density than their "14nm" chips, just as Intels "10nm" chips will have about a 30% higher density than their "14nm" chips.

Intel is only "refining" the 14nm design through the natural course of their "tick-tock" process (which has now added a third "tock", which seems likely to be due to lack of real competition).

No its because their 10nm test yields aren't even close to economical.

Intel has blown their advantage. I'm sure someone will reply with "but its not real 10nm" while being completely ignorant that not only isn't Intel doing "real 14nm" that they are the ones that invented lying about feature size.

Inflation is a symptom of a healthy economy. The money supply should be increasing as the economy increases.

Just wow at the completer ignorance of what inflation is.

If both increase at the same rate, there is no inflation, you economically ignorant fuck. Why are you pretending to be knowledgeable about a subject that you clearly are not? Surely you know that you arent knowledgeable on this subject.

Why are you being dishonest? What gain are you getting by pretending to know something that is patently not true and therefor you dont know?